291 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 2:58 PM, said:

Really? Do you create zero pollution in your own life? Of do you not care about the environment? You seem to think the two are mutally exclusive.

Huh? My point is that there has been egregious pollution in our lifetimes, and if what you say about it regulating itself were true, we would not have seen that.I personally live in a self-contained sustainable biodome, but I don't expect everybody to do that.

[strategy]

Zealous Donkey, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 1:58 PM, said:

You'll be happy to know that they are wrong. If they were right the coastal cities would have been under water in the early 1990s as they predicted.

or frozen over as they were predicting in the 1970s. I am well aware of their garbage track record.

[Mercury69]

To a lesser (by a lot) extent, some of you may know and care (or not) that we currently have a garbage strike in Toronto, going on 3 weeks now.Well, some of the citizens living near Christie Pits, a fairly central downtown Bloor park, took exception to the rink area being used as a public drop off point and were giving anyone dropping off their garbage a hard time. Do you think they had an alternative in mind? If they did, I didn't hear a peep about it. They just cared about their own little corner of the universe and everything was cool as long as the dumping happened elsewhere...

[Balloon guy]

Mercury69, on Monday, July 13th, 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

To a lesser (by a lot) extent, some of you may know and care (or not) that we currently have a garbage strike in Toronto, going on 3 weeks now.Well, some of the citizens living near Christie Pits, a fairly central downtown Bloor park, took exception to the rink area being used as a public drop off point and were giving anyone dropping off their garbage a hard time. Do you think they had an alternative in mind? If they did, I didn't hear a peep about it. They just cared about their own little corner of the universe and everything was cool as long as the dumping happened elsewhere...

I am working with a guy who is near Toronto right now and he was telling me about some of the smells and problems with the trash getting piled up near the river.Man I am glad I live in a country that knows how to keep it's corrupt unions in line by paying them whatever they ask.

[Mercury69]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 1:03 AM, said:

I am working with a guy who is near Toronto right now and he was telling me about some of the smells and problems with the trash getting piled up near the river.Man I am glad I live in a country that knows how to keep it's corrupt unions in line by paying them whatever they ask.

That'd probably be people dumping down by the Don River, both legally and illegally. The City is treating and covering legal dump sites, but it's difficult to control. Also, the union is trying to blockade people from dumping at legal sites as a pressure tactic.Not a lot of fun...The streets are in horrible shape for biking, among other things, although my neighbourhood is still selling fairly fresh (I live downtown west near High Park, so we're near the lake).

[solderz]

My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.Fuck Greenpeace.

[Balloon guy]

solderz, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 8:38 AM, said:

My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.F Greenpeace.

Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'.

[Mercury69]

solderz, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.Fuck Greenpeace.

If you eat genetically modified food, doesn't it stand to reason that you and your progeny will become genetically modified? I mean, have there really been long term studies done of the potential effects of consumption of GM foods? I'm not saying they are good or bad, just asking a question that should be asked.Look at it this way: Many products have been developed to use that have turned out to be, in the long term, bad for the environment (ie: styrofoam, various types of plastics, nuclear waste, PCB's, etc...) While some of these things have been useful and even beneficial, some of the disposal methods are found wanting, thus fucking things up. Isn't it conceivable that there might be something "wrong" with GM foods at, say, the cellular level? It's possible that some of the modification aspects may have a leaching property that causes, for example, deterioration of our immune system.Just sayin'

[hblask]

Mercury69, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

If you eat genetically modified food, doesn't it stand to reason that you and your progeny will become genetically modified? I mean, have there really been long term studies done of the potential effects of consumption of GM foods? I'm not saying they are good or bad, just asking a question that should be asked.

LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking.

[Mercury69]

hblask, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking.

Maybe it's naive and uninformed, but at least I'm asking rather than taking an opinion and running with it or accepting what people tell me without asking.What exactly is your position on GM foods and what do you know about them?

[solderz]

hblask, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 8:24 AM, said:

LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking.

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

[hblask]

Mercury69, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

Maybe it's naive and uninformed, but at least I'm asking rather than taking an opinion and running with it or accepting what people tell me without asking.What exactly is your position on GM foods and what do you know about them?

Ok, fair enough.Generally speaking, GM foods are foods that take a gene that exists in nature, and transfers it to another plant or animal that exists in nature. The fear that it will turn plants into zombies or whatever because humans forced the transfer has no scientific basis. The gene already existed and already has the potential to do whatever it is that it does. The human body has no way of knowing, when it eats a particular gene, whether that gene was a random mutation from nature or one that was put there by humans. The genome of plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations, and there is no particular reason to fear a human-induced one (unless it was put there maliciously with the intent to cause harm, of course).A gene that exists in swamp grass to help it endure swamp conditions is no more dangerous just because it was placed in corn that can now endure swampy conditions.As for my position, since it concerns a lot of people, I think it's fair that GM foods be labeled as such so that people can make an informed choice. I'll personally take the cheaper, tastier one, but if people are afraid of zombie tomatoes killing their children, they can stick with the more expensive natural variety.

[JOhnWaters]

NickZepp, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 7:57 AM, said:

We can talk about polluting or not polluting all we want, the planet will have the last laugh, it'll be around for a long, long, long time after we are gone. And the only thing we'll leave behind is a little bit of plastic, maybe.

please, the planet will not outlive us. neither will our sun or any of the planets around here.

[JOhnWaters]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 8:00 AM, said:

Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'.

this is also very true and very sad

[vbnautilus]

solderz, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 9:41 AM, said:

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 9:00 AM, said:

Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'.

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

Come on.Random gene mutations have resulted in us having legs, breathing air, having two eyeballs, the sexual organs...How can you be against planned gene mutations?

[Mercury69]

solderz, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.

hblask, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

Ok, fair enough.Generally speaking, GM foods are foods that take a gene that exists in nature, and transfers it to another plant or animal that exists in nature. The fear that it will turn plants into zombies or whatever because humans forced the transfer has no scientific basis. The gene already existed and already has the potential to do whatever it is that it does. The human body has no way of knowing, when it eats a particular gene, whether that gene was a random mutation from nature or one that was put there by humans. The genome of plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations, and there is no particular reason to fear a human-induced one (unless it was put there maliciously with the intent to cause harm, of course).A gene that exists in swamp grass to help it endure swamp conditions is no more dangerous just because it was placed in corn that can now endure swampy conditions.As for my position, since it concerns a lot of people, I think it's fair that GM foods be labeled as such so that people can make an informed choice. I'll personally take the cheaper, tastier one, but if people are afraid of zombie tomatoes killing their children, they can stick with the more expensive natural variety.

OK...I certainly agree GM foods are a valuable and much needed alternative to starving due to the decline in available arable land and increased aridity on our dying planet, but...

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 1:25 PM, said:

I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.

I also agree that we really don't know about long term (20+ years) potential effects of eating them...Should that be a reason to stop using them? Not if it causes millions of people to die. but, then again, who are we to change the DNA fabric of the universe? Perhaps all the drought and famine and disease is a way for the Earth to rebalance itself?Call me "for" GM foods, provided some controls are in place and people don't get complacent about the scientific aspects.

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 1:29 PM, said:

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

Are the tacos/falafel prepared with GM foods? Mmmm...super taco!And, no, I'm not skeered of the Zombie Tomato Apocalypse

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

The fact that this is a difficult decision for you shows that you are on the side of killing 60 million people.murderer

[JOhnWaters]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 9:29 AM, said:

Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.

dropping context as usual. the number of people that have died needlessly from malaria is well into the milllions. and when used responsibly ddt poses no serious health risks. let me see your source saying that ddt has caused millions of cancer deaths.